NATURE OF THE CASE: 1) committing a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects; 2) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation; 3) engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice; and 4) engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute.

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

DENNIS CHARLES SEGOVIA,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6205355.

Commission No. 06 CH 86

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD

INTRODUCTION

The hearing in this matter was held on October 15, 2007, at
the Chicago offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission,
before a Hearing Board Panel consisting of James B. Pritikin, Chair, Roxanna M.
Hipple, lawyer member, and Eddie Sanders, Jr., public member. The Administrator
was represented by Cass Buscher. Respondent appeared in person and was
represented by Lewis Myers, Jr.

PLEADINGS

On December 6, 2006, the Administrator filed a two-count
complaint against Respondent pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b). Counts I and
II both charge Respondent with committing a criminal act that reflects adversely
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness and fitness to practice law. Respondent
filed his Answer to the Complaint on May 9, 2007. Respondent admitted to the
facts and misconduct alleged in the complaint.

THE EVIDENCE

The Administrator presented the testimony of Dr. Stafford C.
Henry. The Administrator submitted three documentary exhibits. Respondent
presented the testimony of Bohumila Segovia.

PAGE 2:

Evidence Common to all Counts

Ritalin is a controlled substance that cannot be obtained
without a prescription issued by an appropriate medical professional. Respondent
knew that to acquire Ritalin, he needed a prescription from an appropriate
medical professional.

720 ILCS 570/406(b) provides, in part:

It is unlawful for any person knowingly to acquire or obtain possession of a
controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception or
subterfuge.

720 ILCS 5/17-3(a)(2) provides, in part:

A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he knowingly makes or
alters any document apparently capable of defrauding another in such manner that
it purports to have been made by another or at another time, or with different
provisions, or by the authority or one who did not give such authority.

720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) provides, in part:

A person commits an attempt when, with the intent to commit a specific offense,
he does act, which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that
offense.

Count I

On October 8, 2004, Respondent gained access to the
prescription pad belonging to his mother, Dr. Bohumila Segovia, an Illinois
licensed physician. Respondent wrote a prescription for himself for Ritalin and
affixed his mother's name to the prescription. Respondent entered a Walgreen's
pharmacy in Downers Grove, Illinois. He presented to Richard Triebes
("Triebes"), an employee of Walgreen's, a prescription prepared by Respondent
for 20mg of Ritalin. Triebes did not fill the prescription and informed
Respondent that he was contacting the police. Respondent fled the Walgreen's
leaving his driver's license behind. (Adm. Ex. 2).

PAGE 3:

Count II

On April 22, 2005, Respondent gained access to a blank
prescription sheet belonging to Dr. Mike Zangan, an Illinois licensed physician.
Respondent wrote a prescription for himself for 20 mg of Ritalin and affixed Dr.
Zangan's name to the prescription. Respondent entered a K-Mart located in
Elmhurst, Illinois. He presented the prescription to Patricia Falduto
("Falduto"), an employee of K-Mart. (Adm. Ex. 3).

Falduto questioned the validity of the prescription and
contacted Dr. Zangan, who confirmed that he had not written the prescription. In
response, Falduto contacted the Elmhurst Police Department. Elmhurst Police
Department Detective Coughlin arrived and questioned Respondent regarding his
prescription. Respondent admitted that the prescription was false and that he
obtained a blank prescription some time before. Detective Coughlin placed
Respondent under arrest and began a search of Respondent's vehicle. During the
search, Detective Coughlin located cannabis and a pipe used for the smoking of
cannabis in Respondent's car. (Adm. Ex. 3).

At this time, 720 ILCS 550/4(b) provided, in part, that it is
unlawful for any person to knowingly possess cannabis. Also, at this time, 720
ILCS 600/3.5(a) provided, in part, that it is unlawful for any person to
knowingly possess an item of drug paraphernalia with the intent to use it. (Adm.
Ex. 3).

Status of Criminal Cases

As a result of the incidents described in Counts I and II,
discussed above, the DuPage County States' Attorneys Office filed felony charges
against Respondent for forgery and attempted unlawful acquisition of a
controlled substance. Case No. 04 CF 3011 (Count I) and Case No. 05 CF 1193
(Count II), which remain pending pursuant to a guilty plea and entry into a
deferral program pursuant to agreed orders entered on May 25, 2006. Respondent
was placed in

PAGE 4:

the MICAP program by the DuPage County Circuit Court, a
mental health program, for twenty-four months, pursuant to the agreed order for
the deferral program entered in those cases. Respondent is required to comply
with the conditions in the pending cases by May 25, 2008 for the charges to be
dismissed. Otherwise, if Respondent does not comply, then he will be removed
from the deferral program and the charges will be reinstated. (Adm. Ex. 2, 3;
Tr. 86-87).

Dr. Stafford C. Henry

Dr. Stafford C. Henry ("Dr. Henry") is an expert in the field
of forensic psychiatry. Respondent was referred to Dr. Henry by the ARDC. Dr.
Henry met twice with Respondent in August 2005. Respondent failed to appear for
an evaluation in August 2007 because Respondent was admitted to the hospital for
medical issues on the scheduled date. Subsequently, Dr. Henry saw Respondent on
September 25, 2007. However, Dr. Henry did not complete the September 2007
evaluation because he did not receive information that he requested from
Respondent. Dr. Henry stated that he wanted to speak with Respondent's
psychiatrist, Dr. Fay Velasco; his primary care physician; and his case manager
through the DuPage Probation Department, Miss Salvador. Dr. Henry needed
Respondent to execute a release so Dr. Henry could speak to the doctors and case
manager, which had not been provided. (Adm. Ex. 1, p. 15-18; Tr. 19-23).

Dr. Henry opined that Respondent's misconduct alleged in
Count I was a very deliberate and conscious attempt to preserve and enhance an
elevated mood state. At that time, Respondent was suffering active symptoms of
bipolar disorder. Dr. Henry opined that Respondent's misconduct alleged in Count
II was a very goal-directed and organized attempt to sabotage his career. Dr.
Henry opined that Respondent's bipolar disorder, specifically the depressive
phase, was very much linked and very much mitigated the behavior that is alleged
in Count II. (Tr. 27-29, 54-55).

Regarding the treatment of Respondent's bipolar disorder, Dr.
Henry stated that beginning in 2004, Respondent was been in treatment with a
psychiatrist, Dr. Fay Velasco, M.D. Respondent's formal diagnosis of bipolar
disorder was made at that time. Respondent began to experience depressive-like
symptoms in March 2005. Respondent was still seeing Dr. Velasco at that time.
Dr. Henry opined that Respondent has deliberately withheld and/or distorted
certain disclosures to Dr. Velasco because Respondent told Dr. Henry that Dr.
Velasco was a friend and colleague of his mother. Dr. Henry stated that
Respondent has not given Dr. Velasco an accurate description of his alcohol use
which was a problem because Respondent has a history of misusing medication with
a propensity for abuse and Respondent has a history of heavy alcohol use in the
past. In addition, Respondent is on prescribed psychotropic medication which
alcohol can interfere with the therapeutic effects. Dr. Henry stated that
Respondent has a history of

PAGE 6:

abusing opiates. Dr. Henry stated that Respondent failed to
tell Dr. Velasco that he was taking opiates in response to gallbladder attacks.
Dr. Henry stated that Respondent received a prescription for the opiates from
his mother, Dr. Bohumila Segovia. (Tr. 30-33, 46-47).

Dr. Henry stated that he is aware of times when Respondent
stopped taking his medication for his bipolar disorder. Dr. Henry stated that
Respondent did tell Dr. Velasco that he stopped taking his medication. Dr. Henry
stated several concerns he has regarding Respondent's conduct when he goes into
the manic phases of bipolar disorder if Respondent goes off his medication. Dr.
Henry stated that in general, a person's judgment is profoundly impaired.
Respondent admitted to Dr. Henry that when he is manic, he is not appropriate to
practice law. In the past, Respondent has become psychotic; experiencing
thoughts and behavior which were not reality based. (Tr. 34-35).

Dr. Henry stated that there are certain safeguards which
should be in place to decrease Respondent's risk of becoming acutely symptomatic
and increase the likelihood that he would be able to consistently adhere to the
Rules of Professional Conduct. First, Dr. Henry opined that Respondent should
abstain from alcohol and only take those medications which are explicitly
prescribed by his physicians. Second, given Respondent's substance abuse
history, Dr. Henry opined that Respondent will need to be in a treatment
facility which familiarizes him with recover principles and will assist him in
engaging in the recovery community. Dr. Henry stated that treatment can be
either intensive outpatient or residential. Third, Dr, Henry opined that it
would be in Respondent's best interest to seek psychiatric treatment with a
treater other than Dr. Velasco. Fourth, Dr. Henry opined that Respondent would
need to engage in psychotherapy. Fifth, Dr. Henry opined that after Respondent
completes an appropriate level of chemical

PAGE 7:

dependency treatment, Respondent would need to participate in
Aftercare2for at least one year. Respondent would also need to be
involved in Caduceus3.Tr. 35-38).

Further, Dr. Henry opined that Respondent would need to be
urine monitored and would need to regularly go to Twelve Step meetings because
Respondent does not have an appreciation of the fact that he is chemically
dependent. Dr. Henry also recommended that Respondent undergo a sleep study.
Finally, Dr. Henry opined that Respondent receive close medical monitoring. Dr.
Henry recommended that Respondent be placed on probation by the Commission for
at least two years. (Tr. 39-41).

In general, Dr. Henry stated that the appropriate treatment
of mental illness needs to be individually tailored to the patient. Dr. Henry
opined that a mental patient needs to be continually assessed in a number of
different spheres: occupationally, personally and medically. (Tr. 57-58).

Regarding Respondent's current employment status, Dr. Henry
stated that Respondent's practice is primarily transactional. Respondent
represents one corporate client, Bobchiq Management Services. Respondent has
also completed some commercial litigation and bankruptcy work. Dr. Henry stated
that Respondent did not describe any trial work in which he was involved. Dr.
Henry stated that Respondent told him that Respondent does go to court but Dr.
Henry was under the impression that Respondent's work was transactional.
Respondent told Dr. Henry that he has a very small law practice out of his home
which he shares with his mother. (Tr. 76-78).

Dr. Bohumila Segovia

Dr. Bohumila Segovia is Respondent's mother. Dr. Segovia has
been a practicing physician for 37 years. Dr. Segovia specializes in family
practices. Dr. Segovia stated that

PAGE 8:

Respondent had a gallbladder problem in 2007. Dr. Segovia
took Respondent to the emergency room. Contrary to Dr. Henry's testimony, Dr.
Segovia stated that she has never written any prescriptions for Respondent. (Tr.
89-91).

Dr. Segovia stated that she knows Dr. Fay Velasco. Dr.
Segovia stated that she does not have a professional or personal relationship
with Dr. Velasco. Respondent was referred to Dr. Velasco through a physician at
Elmhurst Hospital. Dr. Segovia said she has only communicated with Dr. Velasco
on one occasion. Dr. Segovia stated that Respondent currently lives in her home.
Dr. Segovia stated that she would not treat Respondent's psychiatric issues.
(Tr. 92-94, 97).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In attorney disciplinary proceedings the Administrator has
the burden of proving the charges of misconduct by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Ingersoll, 186 Ill.2d 163, 710 N.E.2d 390, 393 (1999).
Clear and convincing evidence constitutes a high level of certainty, which is
greater than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. People v. Williams, 143 Ill.2d 477, 577 N.E.2d 762
(1991).

Having considered the two-count Complaint, the Answer wherein
Respondent admitted to all allegations charged in the Complaint, the testimony
stated by the witnesses, and the evidence submitted by the Administrator and
admitted at the hearing, we find by clear and convincing evidence that
Respondent engaged in the acts alleged and committed the following misconduct as
charged in the Complaint:

Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of
Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by violating
720 ILCS 5/17-3(a)(2), Forgery;

Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of

PAGE 9:

Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by violating 720
ILCS 5/8-4(a), Attempted Unlawful Acquisition of a Controlled Substance;

Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of
Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by violating
720 ILCS 550/4(b), Unlawful Possession on Cannabis;

Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of
Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by violating
720 ILCS 630/3.5(a), Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia;

Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct;

Engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in
violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;
and

Engaging in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or
to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of
Supreme Court Rule 770.

RECOMMENDATION

The purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the
public, maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the
administration of justice. In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423, 434, 721 N.E.2d
1126 (1999). The objective of a disciplinary inquiry is not punishment. Instead,
the purpose is to determine whether an individual should be permitted to engage
in the practice of law. In re Smith , 168 Ill. 2d 269, 295, 659 N.E.2d
896 (1995). In determining the proper sanction, we consider the proven
misconduct along with any aggravating and mitigating factors. In re Witt,
145 Ill. 2d 380, 398, 583 N.E.2d 526 (1991).

The Administrator has recommended that the Respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order of the
court. The Administrator also recommended that Respondent's suspension be stayed
after the first six months with a period of probation of at

PAGE 10:

least two years. In the alternative, the Administrator
recommended a two-year suspension and until further order of the court. In
support of the recommendation for suspension with probation, the Administrator
offered the following cases: In re Cirignani (on consent, attorney
suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the suspension stayed
after first six months by probation with conditions. Attorney forged the name of
physician on prescription blanks on twenty-five occasions, presented the false
prescriptions to a pharmacist who filled the order and submitted the cost to
attorney's insurance provider) and In re Goeken (on consent, attorney
suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the suspension stayed
after first six months by probation with conditions. On two occasions, attorney
forged the name of her treating physician on prescription forms. In mitigation,
attorney offered evidence of depression issues.).

While each case is unique, we find the following cases
instructive:

The attorney in In re Lunardi, 127 Ill. 2d 413, 537
N.E.2d 767 (1989) was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled
substance. The ARDC charged the attorney with committing a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer. Regarding the attorney's criminal activity, the Court stated, "An
attorney must be held to a higher standard of conduct with respect to upholding
the law." 127 Ill. 2d 422. In addition, the attorney was charged with loaning
money to a judge. The testimony adduced at hearing showed that the attorney was
addicted to cocaine. In mitigation, the evidence showed that the attorney had
zealously pursued all efforts to rehabilitate himself. Further, the attorney
offered testimony from nine character witnesses as well as the stipulated
testimony of five character witnesses regarding his good reputation for truth
and veracity. The Supreme Court

PAGE 11:

strongly considered the significant mitigating evidence as
well as the egregious misconduct. The attorney was suspended from the practice
of law for eighteen months.

In In re Economy, 97 CH 25, M.R. 17665 (November 28,
2001), the attorney pled guilty to two counts of aggravated battery, criminal
damage to property and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. The
attorney was diagnosed with alcohol and cocaine dependence, major depression and
narcissistic personality disorder. The attorney was actively seeking treatment
for his depression with psychotherapy and medication. The Hearing Board
considered the attorney's misconduct along with mitigating and aggravating
evidence. In mitigation, the attorney admitted his guilt, expressed remorse for
his conduct, and fully cooperated with the Administrator during his proceeding.
Several character witnesses testified as to his honesty, good reputation,
excellent legal abilities, and commitment to recovery. He also volunteered his
time to community and church organizations. In aggravation, the attorney was a
former assistant state's attorney and certainly knew that buying, possessing,
and using drugs was illegal. In addition, the attorney had a prior criminal
conviction for a similar offense and a prior disciplinary record. The Hearing
Board recommended, and the Supreme Court approved, that the attorney be
suspended for five years and until further order of the court. The suspension
was stayed by a three-year period of conditional probation. The conditions
ordered were recommended by the Administrator as well as the attorney's
psychological treaters.

We also consider evidence in mitigation and aggravation. In
mitigation, Respondent has not been previously disciplined. The evidence shows,
by testimony offered by the Administrator's witness, that Respondent suffers
from bipolar disorder, attention-deficit disorder, personality disorder and a
number of poly-substance abuse and dependence issues. Respondent also suffers
from sleep apnea, morbid obesity, hypertension and diabetes. In aggravation, we

PAGE 12:

are troubled by Respondent's failure to authorize Dr. Henry
to speak with Respondent's psychiatrist, primary care physician and probation
case manager. We also find Respondent's failure to offer character witness
testimony as well as employment documentation evidence in aggravation. We note
that while Respondent is not required to testify, the Hearing Panel would have
appreciated hearing Respondent's testimony regarding several issues, i.e. his
employment status and functions, his rehabilitation strategies, and his
explanation for failing to comply with Dr. Henry's requests. In addition,
although Respondent is presently enrolled in a deferral program for two felonies
where he pled guilty, we note that the successful completion of that program is
scheduled to occur after the conclusion of these proceedings and that the
failure of Respondent to comply would result in the reinstatement of those
felony convictions.

CONCLUSION

Given the absence of Respondent's testimony and Dr. Henry's
incomplete 2007 evaluation, the Panel finds itself in a difficult position
regarding the recommendation of an appropriate sanction. Upon consideration of
Dr. Henry's limited recommendation, relevant caselaw and mitigating and
aggravating factors, we recommend that Respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for two years. During the suspension, we recommend that Respondent be
ordered to comply with the following conditions:

Respondent
shall attend meetings scheduled by the Commission probation officer as
requested by the Administrator. Respondent shall submit quarterly written
reports to the Administrator concerning the nature and extent of his
compliance with the conditions of probation;

Respondent
shall notify the Administrator within fourteen (14) days of any change of
address;

Respondent
shall comply with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and shall
timely cooperate with the Administrator in providing information regarding
any investigations relating to his conduct;

PAGE 13:

Respondent
shall reimburse the Commission for the costs of this proceeding as defined
in Supreme Court Rule 773 and shall reimburse the Commission for any further
costs incurred during the period of probation;

Respondent
shall completely abstain from the usage of alcohol and any unprescribed
controlled substances;

Respondent
shall comply with all treatment recommendations of the mental health
professional, including the taking of medications as prescribed;

Respondent
shall seek psychiatric treatment with a treater other than Dr. Velasco;

Respondent
shall provide to the mental health professional an appropriate release as
required under the Confidentiality Act of the Mental Health Code, 740 ILCS
110/1 et seq., authorizing the treating professional to: (i) disclose to the
Administrator on at least a quarterly basis information pertaining to the
nature of respondent's compliance with any treatment plan established with
respect to respondent's condition; (ii) promptly report to the Administrator
respondent's failure to comply with any part of any established treatment
plan; and (iii) respond to any inquiries of the Administrator regarding
respondent's mental or emotional state or compliance with any established
treatment plans;

Respondent
shall notify the Administrator within fourteen (14) days of any change in
treating mental health professionals;

Respondent
shall, upon request by the Administrator, submit to random substance testing
by a mental health professional or facility approved by the Administrator,
within eight (8) hours of receiving notice by the Administrator that he
shall submit to the testing. The results of the tests shall be reported to
the Administrator. Respondent shall pay any and all costs of such testing;

Respondent
shall be in a treatment facility which familiarizes him with recovery
principles and assist him in engaging in the recovery community. The
treatment can be either intensive outpatient or residential as determined by
Respondent's treating psychiatrist;

Respondent
shall engage in psychotherapy;

After
Respondent completes an appropriate level of chemical dependency treatment,
Respondent shall participate in Aftercare for at least one year;

Respondent
shall undergo a sleep study; and

PAGE 14:

Respondent
shall obtain a primary care physician acceptable to the Administrator.
Respondent shall inform this physician of his addiction history. This
physician shall be the only physician prescribing medication to respondent,
other than respondent's treating psychiatrist.

1Dr. Henry defined Bipolar Disorder
as a major psychiatric condition which is progressive by nature. Typically
it manifests in two phases. During the first phase of the disease there is
a depressive phase, which is characterized by a host of depressive symptoms:
depressed mood, hopelessness, suicidality, sleep and appetite disturbance, low
energy and impaired concentration. Alternatively, there are periods of
mania and hypomania. Symptoms of mania and hypomania include a sense of
omnipotence, a sense of grandiosity, a sense that the person has special powers
and abilities and knows famous people, a decreased need for sleep and an
increase in goal-directed activity.

2
Aftercare is a relapse prevention group that generally meets
once per week.

3
Caduceus is a twelve-step based group specifically for doctors and lawyers.